Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

it appears from this picture

that the specific, RARE, ( i say rare because that is what was said in an article posted by josh anonymous himself ) atmospheric conditions for contrails to persist… actually must in reality, occur all over the world, all the bloody time!

josh and fenton are liars. simple as that.

By aewt on 2015 01 28 - 13:12:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…

re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 10:51:17
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

another good example of free speech being stifled was something that you touched upon in this episode, and that was the example of julian blanc being refused entry into the country.

this guy, mr blanc, posted some pretty stupid stuff on facebook, however im unsure as to whether he did anything that really justified him being refused entry into the country. apparently he advocated violence against women by posting a graph on fb that showed how abusive men control women and he had some gambit he was running that involved putting your hands around a womans throat. im not quite sure what that was all about, but the idea that you would be able to just romp around choking women without getting your ass kicked by white knights is pretty stupid. if the man was an abuser, then how did he get a visa? it doesn’t take much to get put on an assault charge, especially against a woman

ironically, some of his students where assaulted by feminazis in the protest against him

regarding islam, only one religion has a figurehead who was without doubt, a warlord. Most non mulslims who defend islam dont know anything about the religion.

Do you have any idea about the military conquests of the first muslims? Do you know about the verses in the koran that directly call for violence? Do you know how many men where decapitated by mohammeds army? do you know how many surrendered men or non combatants where decapitated by mohammeds army? how many women where raped? how many people enslaved or forced to live as second class citizens by the first muslims?

when you do an episode on this, please directly answer these questions

also, the charlie hebdo cover says, ‘massacre in egypt, the koran is shit’ it doesnt stop bullets’. it doesnt just say the koran is shit

 

By rattus rattus on 2015 01 27 - 21:51:15
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think “raising important concerns” about Islam implies that I or anyone think that 1.6 billion Muslims are flawed or evil, but I certainly think there is evidence enough to demonstrate (by our standards at least) that their religion is definitely flawed and evil. I suggest you read the Koran and tell me how this medieval mind muck is of benefit to mankind in the age of quantum physics. One need only look at how most Islamic countries are governed, which, to my understanding of the word, are evil and backward. I think Muslims have a different understanding of the concept : “evil”...For example, the penalty for apostasy (changing religion or opting out of “the religion of peace” is death; the penalty for homosexuality is often death (beheading) torture, mutilation and or imprisonment; Women are often stoned or killed by their parents - usually father - for not wearing the veil; women are second class citizens; children as young as 6 can be married ( but its not OK to have sex with them until they are 9 ); women are stoned to death for adultery; thieves have their hands cut off, and any criticism of the Prophet is usually punished by intimidation, death or mass murder…and its all there in the Koran, page after page. Then we have the wholesale slaughter of villages in Africa, and terrorist attacks happening almost everyday in many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.Meanwhile, in WA, some self proclaimed Sydney cleric wants to build an “army”  And if ordinary Australians express their concern when it starts to happen over here, they are branded as racists and homophobes. I don’t think so.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-cz9RN35k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 27 - 21:18:41
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

When you say “raising concerns” it sounds harmless enough, but you are implying that a whole class of people who make up 1.6 billion on this earth are somehow flawed or evil due to their religion. This is the epitome of intolerance. Many Muslims are intolerant also, agreed. Is the answer to then become intolerant of all Muslims?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 14:55:44
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I think free speech implies that you have something to say, calling someone names isn’t free speech. Free speech is being free to question the dominant narrative. And we are certainly not free to do that. Anyone who questions the religion of climate change, or the six million Jews died in concentration camps argument are called a “deniers” and anyone who raises important concerns about Islam is called “Islamophobic, although their phobia (fear) may be justified. There are many other examples which are too obvious to mention. But you get the picture.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 26 - 19:30:22
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

the lies are OBVIOUS!
http://www.sandyhookjustice.com/
fenton is a moron.

By yuhguy on 2015 01 26 - 10:25:22
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

fenton lies about the obvious, and thinks he is being clever??
nothing wrong with sandy hook, nothing wrong with the pentagon, and nothing wrong with chemtrails.

you need to retitle your pathetic blog you pathetic liar.

By jklm on 2015 01 26 - 10:22:57
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

Categories